In his speech yesterday, Obama predictably took credit for the latest developments regarding Syria's use of chemical weapons: In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical...
With the focus now on the Russian proposal to bring Syrian chemical weapons under “international control,” questions that remain include how would this actually work? Who would take control? One likely participant in the implementation would be the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the implementing body for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). From the OPCW website: As of today...
In the UK, the government released a brief note which described the legal theory justifying a strike on Syria. The note may have had flaws, but it certainly offered a basis to evaluate the UK government's view of international law. In the United States, the equivalent appears to be conversations between the White House Counsel and Charlie Savage of the...
As Samantha Power (the new U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.) demands unilateral action and rages against the deadlocked Security Council, it is worth thinking again about the odd structure of the UNSC and its veto power for P-5 members. In this light, I would point our readers to an interesting piece by Andrew Carswell forthcoming in the Journal of Conflict...
As readers of the blog no doubt know, Syria is is one of seven states that have not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). (The others are Angola, Egypt, Israel, Myanmar, North Korea, and South Sudan.) To consider Syria's use of chemical weapons as a rationale for attacking the country, the USG obviously needs to assume that the use of such...
There are growing signs of opposition in the U.S. Congress to the Obama Administration's plans to strike Syria. Over 116 Congressmen (98 Republicans, 18 Democrats) signed a letter rejecting the administration's (Harold Koh) interpretation of the War Powers Act in the Libya case, and demanding that the President seek Congress's authorization for any strike. Here is a link to the...
An interesting discussion recently broke out on twitter about whether the Security Council could refer the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons -- and only the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons -- to the ICC. Instead of breaking my thoughts into 60 tweets or so, I thought I'd be old-fashioned and write a blog post instead. The issue raises a...
Yes, the title is intended to be provocative. And yes, I think chemical weapons are indeed terrible. But statements like this -- offered by John Kerry in thinly-veiled support for using military force against the Syrian government -- still give me pause (emphasis mine): What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any...
My friend Dapo Akande has a superb post at EJIL: Talk! discussing whether the ICC could prosecute the use of chemical weapons by the government in Syria. I agree almost entirely with Dapo's analysis, but I do want to offer a couple of thoughts about his discussion of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: The argument that chemical weapons are...
Criticism of the specific-direction requirement endorsed by the ICTY Appeals Chamber in Perišić has officially jumped the shark. According to James Stewart, the requirement would have required the British military court in Hamburg to acquit the two German businessmen who provided the Zyklon-B that the SS used to gas Jews in the death camps: In any event, let’s assume that specific direction...
It's been quite a month for the mainstream media. First, at FP.com, Elias Groll completely misstated the mens rea of the Espionage Act and refused to correct his mistake. (He obviously reads my tweets, because he re-tweeted a criticism I offered of a different article.) Then, at the Guardian, Owen Bowcott misrepresented the specific-direction requirement, eliding the distinction between aiding...
[Elizabeth Holland is an attorney with the law firm Foley Hoag LLP, where she focuses on international law and corporate social responsibility. The views expressed here are her own.] There is clear need for effective counterterrorism measures. Equally compelling is the humanitarian imperative to address civilian need in situations of armed conflict. It has been questioned, however, whether the balance struck...
